CCPR/C/119/D/2338/2014 4.9 Regarding the author’s claim that he belongs to several of the vulnerable groups identified in the UNHCR guidelines of 6 August 2013 as facing danger if returned to Afghanistan,26 the State party submits that the same UNHCR document also shows that the author would not be at risk if returned. For instance, regarding persons perceived as supportive of the international community, UNHCR states that those who are particularly targeted are local leaders, religious leaders and women in the public sphere. 27 Concerning men and boys of fighting age, it indicates that there is a risk for those boys and men in areas where the Government does not exercise control and in the areas affected by the conflict between pro-governmental forces and non-governmental forces.28 The State party further indicates that, according to the same UNHCR guidelines, in those areas persons perceived as contravening the Taliban’s interpretation of Islamic values can be attacked, and that the Taliban target musicians, film-makers, people playing sports and persons who have attended events perceived as violating Islamic principles, norms and values. 29 Finally, regarding the author’s allegation that individuals of an ethnic minority would face a risk if returned to Afghanistan, the State party submits that the guidelines indicate that ethnic minority groups targeted include Kuchis, Hazaras and members of the Jat ethnic group. 30 Taking into account that the author is a Tajik from Mazar-e-Sharif, where 60 per cent of the population is of Tajik origin,31 that he is a young man without health problems, that he has stated in the asylum proceedings that he has never been politically active, that he has never been arrested in Afghanistan, and that he is not a high-profile person, the State party considers that there is no basis on which to revise the assessment made by the Refugee Appeals Board, especially because available background material does not allow it to assume that returnees who are removed to Afghanistan are at risk of having their rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant violated for the sole reason of having lived for several years in the Western world. Thus, the State party relies entirely on the assessment made by the Board in its decisions of 31 January 2013, 30 October 2013 and 16 January 2014. 4.10 Regarding the author’s allegation that his rights under article 18 of the Covenant would be violated if returned to Afghanistan, the State party reiterates the arguments developed in connection with the other allegations, referring to the finding referred to by the Refugee Appeals Board in its decision of 16 January 2014 that the author’s conversion to Christianity was not genuine.32 4.11 Concerning the allegation that articles 14 and 26 were violated because the author’s friend was not allowed to testify at the author’s hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board on 16 January 2014, the State party indicates that according to section 54 (1) of the Aliens Act, the Board decides on the examination of witnesses, and that it would not generally permit the production of witnesses in order to substantiate the asylum seekers’ general credibility. It further reiterates that the Board took into account the written statement of the author’s friend. As for the claim that the Board should have transmitted the case to the Danish Immigration Service instead of deciding itself, the State party submits that when new information comes to light, the Board, being the authority deciding the appeal, makes an assessment as to whether the new information may result in a different decision. This is in accordance with internal legislation and practice and does not contravene the twoinstance principle. The decision of 30 October 2013 rejecting the request to reopen the case was based on the information submitted by the author at the time, which did not include any evidence of his church-related activities before and after his baptism. When the Board received such information, it reopened the case, and conducted a hearing on 16 January 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 See para. 3.2 above. UNHCR, eligibility guidelines, pp. 36-37. Ibid., pp. 40-41. Ibid. pp. 47-48. Ibid., pp. 67-68. The State party refers to a report by the Congressional Research Service, entitled “Afghanistan: postTaliban governance, security and US policy” (4 April 2012), p. 87. Available at www.parstimes.com/library/afghanistan_crs_a2012.pdf. See paras. 4.5-4.6 above. 7